Marijuana.com

Buzzby

DEA Education Vs. Lobbying
Denver Post | 08/29/2006

Some people who work at the Denver division of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration strongly oppose a Colorado ballot measure that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

And they're speaking out about it.

The question that has emerged this week is whether their efforts, which they see as educating the public, really cross the line and are prohibited lobbying.

It would seem not, according to rules written by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. But DEA officers would do well to be vigilant about keeping separate their government-paid drug enforcement mission and their personal political beliefs.

The issue arose this week after the Boulder Daily Camera wrote a story that said an agent in the Denver division of the agency had sent an e-mail from a U.S. Department of Justice account, looking for a campaign manager to defeat the marijuana measure. The e-mail reportedly said the group had $10,000 to launch the campaign.

Jeffrey Sweetin, special agent in charge of the Denver office, disputes many points in the story. The agent, Michael Moore, didn't write the e-mail, he said. It didn't come from a DOJ address. The group does not have $10,000. And Moore's name was used as a contact without his consent, according to Sweetin.

That would seem to be purely a dispute between the agency and the publication, except that Sweetin acknowledges that he believes it's appropriate to weigh in on the marijuana question.
He said passing Amendment 44 would be a disaster for Colorado. It would legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana by people 21 years and older.

"If they pass this, I think they're making a mistake," he said.

And Sweetin thinks that it's appropriate for DEA agent Moore to advise Guarding Our Children Against Marijuana, a group opposing the measure. He said it's part of the DEA's mission to reduce drug demand and provide facts to people on both sides of the debate.

Those actions don't appear to violate the Hatch Act, which governs the political activities of federal employees. But this also is very sensitive political ground to tread. The Hatch Act was devised as a way to regulate use of government resources for political purposes.

Providing facts to people who want them is one thing. Using the agency as a platform to influence elections is another. Sweetin says he clearly understands the difference.

We certainly hope that's the case.

 

self_medicator

So, they're going to use their reefer madness lies to "educate" the public?

walstmonky

I believe the correct word is 'edumacate'.